“THEY WOULD BE SELECTED FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE OF A HIGHLY STIMULATING NATURE…”

2/9/09

Loyal readers know that I am no fan of either President Obama’s “stimulus” plan or any of the Republican alternatives thereto. Why? These tired old “take money from one pocket, put it in another, and wait for the magical ‘multiplier’ effect (which somehow only works, according to its acolytes, when money passes through the government’s hands) to wave its pixie dust over the economy” concoctions only work, if at all, in the most ephemeral of manners.

But let’s suppose that I’m wrong. Unlike people in charge on Wall Street, in Washington, and in most of our once great nation’s huge corporations, I admit to that possibility. Let’s say that a large dose of the type of spending that got us into this mess in the first place is the perfect elixir for what ails us, and the government should go out and spend a lot of money in order to get us back on the path of economic righteousness. If that is the case, I would propose a (perhaps massive) plan to repave and build roads, bridges, etc.

Anyone who drives and pays attention (an increasingly rare combination) has noticed that our roads are in terrible shape: potholed, dangerous, and riddled with bottlenecks. These roads are badly in need of repair. Further, being “green” is all the rage of late, and perhaps understandably so. If the government wants to do something about the condition of the environment, and it probably should, the most immediately effective course of action would be, ironically (and doubtless to the shrieks of many of the greenies), to build more roads. Why? Because we don’t have enough roads to accommodate the large and growing (until recently) number of cars. Few things are as bad for air quality as cars’ stuck in traffic spewing noxious fumes into the atmosphere.

If building and repairing roads, bridges, and other “infrastructure” (narrowly defined) ends up having, as I suspect, negligible economic impact (certainly not economic impact anywhere commensurate with its fiscal impact), at least we will get some badly needed roads out of the deal.

As for the rest of the items in the “stimulus” package, i.e., more money for education, health care, and every other item that has been rotting on the wish list of the Democratic party for at least the last eight years, they may or may not have merit, but they don’t belong in a “stimulus” bill. Most don’t belong in any federal budget, according to that archaic document we call the U.S. Constitution, but that is another matter entirely. Even the tax cuts, which I normally consider especially salubrious for the economy, don’t belong in this bill at this time of unprecedented federal deficits.

Especially odious is the provision (Surprise!) contained in both the House and the Senate bills allowing businesses to carry back losses for tax purposes five years, up from the current two, which amounts to handing money out to large businesses that just can’t cut it but can still manage to cut checks to the GOP and, to lesser extent, to the Democrats. (See my 1/16/09 post SCREW UP, GET A CHECK!!!) The GOP fought harder for this provision than any other in the “stimulus” bill, and an insightful observer suspects that Democratic resistance was more cinematic than real. I have long suspected (known, really) that, despite its protestations that it is for the “free-market” and “small business” that the GOP is really for very large businesses, and only very large businesses. The GOP’s ardent support of this particular “welfare for losers” scheme, however, leads to suspicion that the GOP is the party only of large businesses who consistently lose money. But I digress. This especially malodorous portion of the “stimulus” package, which will doubtless survive, is a bad idea at any time and belongs in no piece of legislation, “stimulatory” or otherwise.